But how as to the other nations? How can they be restrained? No other method has been or can be suggested but by an agreement such as is embodied in the League. Why should the United States not enter the agreement? It is objected that by doing so this nation is delegating to a foreign body in which it has only one representative the limiting of its power to defend itself from foreign aggression and possible destruction. It is said that it leaves us "naked to our enemies."

The answer to the objections is full and complete. First, the Council in formulating the plan and fixing limits must act unanimously. Therefore, the plan cannot be adopted by the Council without the consent of the American Representative in that body. This is a guaranty that the limits to be fixed would be not unfair or unreasonable so far as we are concerned.

Secondly, after the plan has been formulated and the limits fixed, each government must accept it before it is adopted. Therefore, the Government of the United States through its constitutional agencies, the

treaty-making power and in this case the Congress as well, will consent and fix the limits of armament if they may deem it wise. Surely this protects us against the arbitrary or unfair fixing of a limit by any body but ourselves. Are we children who cannot protect our own interests in making such an agreement?

(Letter No. 12)

ARTICLE VIII (Continued)

Under Article VIII we covenant to keep within the limit we agree to for ten years, when the whole plan is subject to revision— meantime, should conditions change, the Council has power to increase the limit for any government needing it; but it can only be granted with the consent of our representative in the Council. More than this, we can at any time withdraw from all the obligations of the League, including this one, on two years' notice.

It is to be noted that we agree to limit our armament in consideration on the fact that every other League member makes a similar promise as to its armament. Our reduction and limit are to be proportionate to those of other members. Their reduction lessens the necessity for our defense as does the compulsory reduction of the armaments

of our enemies in this war. We are not thus left "naked to our enemies," whether of this war or any future war, in any other way than that they are equally "naked" to us.

The necessity for reduction of armament to avoid danger of war has long been recognized and acquiesced in by all nations except Germany. We were among the most earnest in seeking a limit or reduction of armament at the Hague Conferences but Germany peremptorily refused. Are we now to change our attitude on this crucial question? Did we think that in urging it at the Hague we were to make ourselves "naked to our enemies" by entering such an agreement? Were we only hypocrites when we pressed it upon the conferees at the Hague?

If the great continental powers of Europe and Asia, where the danger of war is much more probable than here, can afford to limit their armaments by convention, can we not do so, when the Atlantic separates us from Europe, and the Pacific from Asia?

More than this, is there not a humorous phase of this objection when we consider the consistent course of this country since

the beginning of its history? In spite of the urging of Washington and many of his successors, we never have had an adequate armament until after war has come. Not even for mere police duty have we had a sufficient regular army in time of peace. From soon after the Civil War until the Spanish War, a period of thirty years, with Indian campaigns frequently recurring, for a people increasing from fifty to ninety millions, we had only 25,000 men in our regular armyand since the Spanish War, we have never been able to increase that army beyond one hundred thousand; while in all the details of proper preparatory equipment we were wanting.

We can be sure, therefore, that the Council will recommend a limit of armament for us that Congress, in time of peace, will never desire to exceed and will probably fall short of in actual practice. We should be justified in far more concern if the League imposed on us specific obligation as to a minimum armament.

But it is said that it is unconstitutional for our treaty-making power to agree to a limit